I have just uploaded a new article on my web page. It concerns some ironies about the Lovaas Institute for early development and the social security administration office. the article is at:
www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/lovaas.html I submitted this article to My Turn column in Newsweek magazine last October. I never heard back from them. They said in the submission guidelines that they receive about 200 submissions for every piece they publish in this column and that if a writer did not hear back from them in two months this meant they were not under consideration. Well, apparently, I did not beat the 200 to 1 odds of getting the piece published in Newsweek. It is sort of an interesting irony and as some of my older readers may remember, before I moved my blogging over here from Jonathan's Journal on my web page, I blogged about this topic there, so I guess you can go there and read it there too if you like. don't think I need to provide the URL as I am pretty sure any interested reader can navigate from the lovaas-related article to the journal section of my webpage and find it there.
Since I did not beat those 200 to 1 odds I decided to publish it in the non-fiction part of my web page in case anyone gives a shit and is interested in reading it. Well, thanks in advance to anyone who happens to read it.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Mercury Militia versus Neurodiversity, an ironic war between two adversaries
Lately, I have been reading the multiple blog entries by those in the neurodiversity camp protesting the subpoena of neurodiversity.com owner Kathleen Seidel, by one of the lawyers involved in anti-vaccine litigation for one of the members of the mercury militia. I was also reading a blog by someone who calls themselves Axinar who was blogging about this ongoing feud. I really have no comment on the subpoena one way or the other as I don't really know all the details as I do not know whether or not this attorney is really just trying to harass Ms. Seidel as some proponents of neurodiversity seem to believe. I have also been reading the famous John Best's vitriolically profane diatribes on the matter also. He seems to want nothing less than the electric chair for any member of neurodiversity.
What I am more interested in commenting about is the irony of the whole situation. Those in the mercury militia and neurodiversity seem very much alike to me in many respects.
Those who belong to the mercury militia, particularly people like Best, J.B. Handley and others who are part of the organization Generation Rescue have it all figured out, or at least so they think. The answer is really easy. Autism is just another name for mercury poisoning. Autistic people are not really permanently damaged, they just have too much mercury floating about in their brains from vaccines, pollution from coal burning plants dental amalgams or other mercury-containing sources. The solution we are told is easy. Autism is curable through a treatment called chelation where chemical agents bind to the mercury that is in the autistic's brain and removes it. When this occurs they are cured, problem solved. A vexing problem which scientists have been researching for a few decades has an easy answer that those working in these labs and receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer and private sector grants were apparently too moronic to think of. If we only listen to JB, and the rest of the generation rescue entourage. Autism will no longer be a problem, everyone with the condition will be cured by chelation.
Those in neurodiversity have their own easy simple solution. Autism is not really a disability, at least not a medical one. It is only a societal disability in that society is too prejudiced to accommodate these people who are only just wired slightly differently. These same scientists, and organizations like autism speaks who are so despised by the mercury militia are equally abhorred by those who advocate neurodiversity. They are just wasting their time. If society would only make the necessary accommodations for these people, would stop being so bigoted and would only forget their genocidal ambitions to cure autism, autistic people would no longer be at a disadvantage. They would be able to do everything that the neurotypical can do, problem solved.
These groups have much more in common then they ever dreamed of. This is why both opposing camps have so much animosity towards autism speaks and other neuroscientists and geneticists struggling so hard to find answers for this baffling disorder. What a bunch of cretins these geneticists and neuroscientists who are working their asses off for nothing are!! All this work and money flushed down the toilet. After all, two groups of people have these easy solutions that make their jobs and their grants utterly superfluous. one group says that if chelation is done all this is unnecessary. The other says, societal acceptance will solve everything. If either side is correct, these scientists will be out of a job.
As the few regular readers of my writings and the few fans I do have know, I don't agree with either camp. But I can't help getting a kick of the irony of how similar the two organizations are.
One organization spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising in USA today and other newspapers just to convert lost souls who are first learning that their 3 year old child has this condition.
Neurodiversity, as I have mentioned before, are not unlike christian missionaries, trying to find lost souls, disaffected by society to convert to their viewpoint.
Is it possible that both groups manage to get members on one side or the other because both provide easy, albeit different, answers to this problem?
I wonder who is wasting time, the geneticists and neuroscientists who are trying to find some real answers for autism, hoping that they can find a real cure once and for all or these two groups of people so diametrically opposed to each other but ironically enough so similar in so many respects.
In some ways I envy the two groups. My life has been made so hard by this disability. I have had to accept many times that my tears for toasted snow of having a better life have not been answered. These two groups in their convictions know that things could be so much easier if only people would be converted to their positions. Autism would never be a problem for anyone.
I feel though I must be realistic in assessing the situation. I do not believe there are quick fixes or easy answers to autism, so I am going to have to be frustrated. However, my frustration can be mitigated slightly by laughing at the humor of the similarities between these two warring entities.
What I am more interested in commenting about is the irony of the whole situation. Those in the mercury militia and neurodiversity seem very much alike to me in many respects.
Those who belong to the mercury militia, particularly people like Best, J.B. Handley and others who are part of the organization Generation Rescue have it all figured out, or at least so they think. The answer is really easy. Autism is just another name for mercury poisoning. Autistic people are not really permanently damaged, they just have too much mercury floating about in their brains from vaccines, pollution from coal burning plants dental amalgams or other mercury-containing sources. The solution we are told is easy. Autism is curable through a treatment called chelation where chemical agents bind to the mercury that is in the autistic's brain and removes it. When this occurs they are cured, problem solved. A vexing problem which scientists have been researching for a few decades has an easy answer that those working in these labs and receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer and private sector grants were apparently too moronic to think of. If we only listen to JB, and the rest of the generation rescue entourage. Autism will no longer be a problem, everyone with the condition will be cured by chelation.
Those in neurodiversity have their own easy simple solution. Autism is not really a disability, at least not a medical one. It is only a societal disability in that society is too prejudiced to accommodate these people who are only just wired slightly differently. These same scientists, and organizations like autism speaks who are so despised by the mercury militia are equally abhorred by those who advocate neurodiversity. They are just wasting their time. If society would only make the necessary accommodations for these people, would stop being so bigoted and would only forget their genocidal ambitions to cure autism, autistic people would no longer be at a disadvantage. They would be able to do everything that the neurotypical can do, problem solved.
These groups have much more in common then they ever dreamed of. This is why both opposing camps have so much animosity towards autism speaks and other neuroscientists and geneticists struggling so hard to find answers for this baffling disorder. What a bunch of cretins these geneticists and neuroscientists who are working their asses off for nothing are!! All this work and money flushed down the toilet. After all, two groups of people have these easy solutions that make their jobs and their grants utterly superfluous. one group says that if chelation is done all this is unnecessary. The other says, societal acceptance will solve everything. If either side is correct, these scientists will be out of a job.
As the few regular readers of my writings and the few fans I do have know, I don't agree with either camp. But I can't help getting a kick of the irony of how similar the two organizations are.
One organization spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising in USA today and other newspapers just to convert lost souls who are first learning that their 3 year old child has this condition.
Neurodiversity, as I have mentioned before, are not unlike christian missionaries, trying to find lost souls, disaffected by society to convert to their viewpoint.
Is it possible that both groups manage to get members on one side or the other because both provide easy, albeit different, answers to this problem?
I wonder who is wasting time, the geneticists and neuroscientists who are trying to find some real answers for autism, hoping that they can find a real cure once and for all or these two groups of people so diametrically opposed to each other but ironically enough so similar in so many respects.
In some ways I envy the two groups. My life has been made so hard by this disability. I have had to accept many times that my tears for toasted snow of having a better life have not been answered. These two groups in their convictions know that things could be so much easier if only people would be converted to their positions. Autism would never be a problem for anyone.
I feel though I must be realistic in assessing the situation. I do not believe there are quick fixes or easy answers to autism, so I am going to have to be frustrated. However, my frustration can be mitigated slightly by laughing at the humor of the similarities between these two warring entities.
Friday, April 4, 2008
damn it, Alex, some of us want to be cured
Wrong Planet founder, Alex Plank, was recently interviewed and stated what is the point of view of at least some (if you are reading this Jypsy I am qualifying my statements with some so as not to be misleading) persons with autism spectrum disorders that all or at least most persons with autism do not want to be cured. I am not sure where he gets that number unless it is the relatively small sample of persons who congregate on his web page out of all the autistics in the whole world most of whom are far more severely disabled than probably most of the denizens of wrong planet.net.
Plank, is going to college doing well and has a girfriend. I am 52, never had one, probably never will. I suspect my other problems aside from the girl situation are more severe than his. I must disagree with him. I do want to be cured. I also know of sue rubin, someone who calls herself droopy, tom mckean and others who want to be cured. There are some others who I won't name as they may not want their privacy violated who also want a cure and reject the notion of neurodiversity.
I am quite curious where Plank gets the idea that all or most don't want a cure. Again, I will use the analogy that i used in my article, neurodiversity just say no, of the poller taking a poll in Biloxi, Mississippi and coming to the conclusion that at least 99% of all Americans want John McCain to be president of the United States, want to bring back a military draft, want to outlaw abortion and bring back prayer in the schools. This is the type of reasoning Plank and the other persons who make this claim are using.
One of the sad truths is that most of the autistics who do want a cure have never had an internet blog or have no way of posting on the internet and never will. They don't have the education or functioning level or inclination to write blog posts or post comments on other people's blogs. If Plank thinks that no one on the spectrum will rebut his claims he is sadly mistaken. I am on record of saying I wish there could be a cure for autism. Again, I urge anyone who is proposed by a neurodiversity adherent to just say no to neurodiversity.
In the event that you happen to read this, Alex, perhaps you can tell me where you get your figure of "most" autistics not wanting to be cured. Have you taken any sort of scientific poll of a cross section of autistics. Even if you have. What about all of the autistics who are unable to talk or communicate in any way? How can they tell you, they want a cure? My friend, neuroscientist Matthew Belmonte's brother has a very limited ability to communicate using facilited communcation. He has communicated to Matthew that he does not like his autism and wants to be cured. You have to factor this in also, Alex. I am still waiting to find out where this idea comes from, from at least some persons on the spectrum that most or all don't want a cure.
Plank, is going to college doing well and has a girfriend. I am 52, never had one, probably never will. I suspect my other problems aside from the girl situation are more severe than his. I must disagree with him. I do want to be cured. I also know of sue rubin, someone who calls herself droopy, tom mckean and others who want to be cured. There are some others who I won't name as they may not want their privacy violated who also want a cure and reject the notion of neurodiversity.
I am quite curious where Plank gets the idea that all or most don't want a cure. Again, I will use the analogy that i used in my article, neurodiversity just say no, of the poller taking a poll in Biloxi, Mississippi and coming to the conclusion that at least 99% of all Americans want John McCain to be president of the United States, want to bring back a military draft, want to outlaw abortion and bring back prayer in the schools. This is the type of reasoning Plank and the other persons who make this claim are using.
One of the sad truths is that most of the autistics who do want a cure have never had an internet blog or have no way of posting on the internet and never will. They don't have the education or functioning level or inclination to write blog posts or post comments on other people's blogs. If Plank thinks that no one on the spectrum will rebut his claims he is sadly mistaken. I am on record of saying I wish there could be a cure for autism. Again, I urge anyone who is proposed by a neurodiversity adherent to just say no to neurodiversity.
In the event that you happen to read this, Alex, perhaps you can tell me where you get your figure of "most" autistics not wanting to be cured. Have you taken any sort of scientific poll of a cross section of autistics. Even if you have. What about all of the autistics who are unable to talk or communicate in any way? How can they tell you, they want a cure? My friend, neuroscientist Matthew Belmonte's brother has a very limited ability to communicate using facilited communcation. He has communicated to Matthew that he does not like his autism and wants to be cured. You have to factor this in also, Alex. I am still waiting to find out where this idea comes from, from at least some persons on the spectrum that most or all don't want a cure.
Friday, March 28, 2008
What IEP should stand for
Yesterday I was reading one of the multiple blog entries by the very prolific blogger Kristina Chew at autism.vox.com. She was talking about her son's IEP and some of the views she and her husband had on their son's IEP and some of the logistical problems they had being busy academic professionals in attending their son's IEP in person. They are among the many parents of autistic children whose tears for toasted snow will most likely not be fulfilled. Many of these parents, including Dr. Chew and her husband insist that ABA be included in their autistic child's IEP-a treatment that promises a coin-flip probability of complete normalcy for the autistic child. Naturally, they present no adult outcomes in the peer reviewed literature, only informally at conferences, where I am unable to look at their results. I emailed Tristram Smith, Ivar Lovaas' heir apparent, asking him if he could email details of these conferences and if they would ever publish a study presenting adult outcomes. I was told that they wanted to publish their adult outcomes but "logistical problems", whatever that means, prevented them from doing so, but he emailed me a power point file about the conference. It turned out the file he emailed me just was a list of tests they gave the research subjects and nothing else. My friend Stephen Shore suggested that I email Dr. Smith and ask him for something more, but I just did not have the inclination to do so.
I still wonder why these logistical problems would prevent them from publishing in the peer reviewed literature in spite of the huge NIMH funding they have received specifically to study adult outcomes in the research subjecs that the wrote about in their 1987 study but not prevent them from making presentations at conferences.
This sort of gave me an inspiration of what IEP should stand for: Idiotic Expectations Program.
I still wonder why these logistical problems would prevent them from publishing in the peer reviewed literature in spite of the huge NIMH funding they have received specifically to study adult outcomes in the research subjecs that the wrote about in their 1987 study but not prevent them from making presentations at conferences.
This sort of gave me an inspiration of what IEP should stand for: Idiotic Expectations Program.
The End
Monday, March 17, 2008
The serenity prayer
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
The above is the serenity prayer, which is said at the end of 12 step meetings which I occasionally attend. I believe that both parents of autistic children and those who cling to a belief in neurodiversity should learn this prayer and repeat it to themselves and take it to heart in their own lives. For those of them who are either atheists or agnostics (this includes myself actually) the word God could be omitted and it could be called a saying instead of a prayer. Parents of autistic children cling to figurative opiates like ABA as a treatment that will make their children completely normal in spite of the evidence to the contrary. They cling to a belief that thimerosal causes autism, not because of any scientific evidence but rather because it gives them the hope that some sort of treatment could be found on the basis of this etiology. They lobby for flawed laws like IDEA because of the mistaken belief that their children will get some sort of benefit.
Proponents of neurodiversity cling to the flawed notion that autistics need acceptance and not cure and that if society would only change to accommodate autistics, autism would not be a problem. The autism is still there and no problems are solved by this philosophy. Many parents of autistics and most persons who preach neurodiversity would be better off just accepting the things they cannot change. Whether the parents like it or not, their children will always be autistic, these treatments and flawed theories of etiology with the promise of a quick fix won't help them. They need to accept the things they cannot change. This does not mean all is lost, they might with certain types of teaching their children and being loving parents and raising their children to the best of their abilities, but be able to help their children achieve maybe more than they would without their parents trying to do the best for them, but it will take courage to apply this philosophy. It will take courage for those who believe in neurodiversity to stop bad mouthing parents and charity organizations run by people who only want a better life for their kids. It will take courage for the neurodiversity people to stop using psychologic defense mechanisms like denial and reaction formation and to just accept that their autism is really a medical (not social) disability and not just an alternative life-style or culture.
Above all, these people need to have the wisdom to know the difference between what they can or cannot change. Though their autistic children may be able to get somewhat better and overcome some obstacles, they won't be able to function as well as the parents would like in most cases. I don't think I can comment on wisdom as it relates to neurodiversity as it would just make me too angry and I would be accused of trying to start a flame war with anyone who happens to read this post who thinks that autism is just a social disability and not a medical one and who thinks that autism research to look for a cure or at least help those as much as possible is wrong or immoral or does not need to be done, so i will let it go at that.
Again, with the God part omitted for all of the non-believers out there.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
The above is the serenity prayer, which is said at the end of 12 step meetings which I occasionally attend. I believe that both parents of autistic children and those who cling to a belief in neurodiversity should learn this prayer and repeat it to themselves and take it to heart in their own lives. For those of them who are either atheists or agnostics (this includes myself actually) the word God could be omitted and it could be called a saying instead of a prayer. Parents of autistic children cling to figurative opiates like ABA as a treatment that will make their children completely normal in spite of the evidence to the contrary. They cling to a belief that thimerosal causes autism, not because of any scientific evidence but rather because it gives them the hope that some sort of treatment could be found on the basis of this etiology. They lobby for flawed laws like IDEA because of the mistaken belief that their children will get some sort of benefit.
Proponents of neurodiversity cling to the flawed notion that autistics need acceptance and not cure and that if society would only change to accommodate autistics, autism would not be a problem. The autism is still there and no problems are solved by this philosophy. Many parents of autistics and most persons who preach neurodiversity would be better off just accepting the things they cannot change. Whether the parents like it or not, their children will always be autistic, these treatments and flawed theories of etiology with the promise of a quick fix won't help them. They need to accept the things they cannot change. This does not mean all is lost, they might with certain types of teaching their children and being loving parents and raising their children to the best of their abilities, but be able to help their children achieve maybe more than they would without their parents trying to do the best for them, but it will take courage to apply this philosophy. It will take courage for those who believe in neurodiversity to stop bad mouthing parents and charity organizations run by people who only want a better life for their kids. It will take courage for the neurodiversity people to stop using psychologic defense mechanisms like denial and reaction formation and to just accept that their autism is really a medical (not social) disability and not just an alternative life-style or culture.
Above all, these people need to have the wisdom to know the difference between what they can or cannot change. Though their autistic children may be able to get somewhat better and overcome some obstacles, they won't be able to function as well as the parents would like in most cases. I don't think I can comment on wisdom as it relates to neurodiversity as it would just make me too angry and I would be accused of trying to start a flame war with anyone who happens to read this post who thinks that autism is just a social disability and not a medical one and who thinks that autism research to look for a cure or at least help those as much as possible is wrong or immoral or does not need to be done, so i will let it go at that.
Again, with the God part omitted for all of the non-believers out there.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Some New stuff on my website
For the few interested readers, I have started to teach myself HTML and I have been fortunate to have learned enough to add items on my web page and link them. Hopefully I will have learned a whole lot more in June after I finish my HTML course, which I start next Monday.
I have added my controversial article, Neurodiversity: Just Say No at http://www.jonathans-stories.com/Non-fiction/Neurodiv.html
Also an article about my experiences as Eric Courchesne's research subject http://www.jonathans-stories.com/Non-fiction/Corc.html
Hopefully I will get a few interested readers.
I have added my controversial article, Neurodiversity: Just Say No at http://www.jonathans-stories.com/Non-fiction/Neurodiv.html
Also an article about my experiences as Eric Courchesne's research subject http://www.jonathans-stories.com/Non-fiction/Corc.html
Hopefully I will get a few interested readers.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Is Autism more common in girls than previously thought
I have just received an email that on tonight's nightline, there is going to be a program claiming that autism has been underdiagnosed in girls. This has also been posted on the Age of Autism web page. The literature has consistently reported a 4:1 ratio of autism in boys as opposed to girls. The topic of tonight's nightline show is not a spanking brand new idea. This has been a topic that has been proposed many times, often by females with autism. They claim that the 4:1 ratio is a myth. That girls are more sociable than boys. They do a better job of hiding their autism. Or diagnostic substitution exists and they are diagnosed as something else. This was also proposed by Ivar Lovaas and Tristram Smith when Ralph Boyd criticized Lovaas' famous 1987 study claiming that it was not a representative sample of autistics and that the bias of having so many girls in Lovaas' control group as opposed to the experimental group could account for the results of his study. This is because autism in girls is often more severe than in boys. It seems strange to see this post on the Age of Autism's web page and in the email list that the organization unlocking autism has. The reason it is strange is because this view is usually espoused by some of their biggest detractors, the anti-curebie neurodiversity people. The neurodiversity group is often very critical of the mercury causes autism crowd because they want a cure for their disabled children with chelation therapy and other treatments of extremely dubious value. I believe these parents are well-intentioned though misguided.
I suppose I am getting a little off-topic here, so back to the original topic at hand. One of the reasons this alleged argument is so interesting is that the neurodiversity proponents at times often seem to imply that they are representative of all autistics. Sometimes they speak for all autistics. This phenomena has been noted by Harold Doherty's The Royal We post at http://autisminnb.blogspot.com/ I notice that it would seem that an extremely disproportionate number, probably more than 50% of these people are of the female gender. One can look at the postings of neurodiversity people on the internet and see how many females there are. If the allegations that autism is more common in girls than previously thought is true then perhaps neurodiversity's proponents might be more representative of those on the autistic spectrum than I thought. If these people are mistaken, then the predominence of females in the neurodiversity movement would seem to me to be problematic if they claimed that they were any sort of "real voice of autism" as autistics.org implies. It would mean they were less representative of autistics, so that their experiences would not mirror a typical autistic person, who would in reality have an 80% probability of being a male.
Though the internet seems to have a pervasive population of autistic females I know that in AGUA, the autism support group that I helped to start with Jerry Newport and some other people back in 1993 has at least a 10:1 ratio if not higher of males to females. This is greater than what is often presented in the literature. Though, some of the literature indicates that the ratio may be as high as 10:1 in the higher functioning groups as autistic females are often more severely afflicted than males as I mentioned previouslyThis is one thing that compels me not only to believe that neurodiversity is not a very representative sample of autistic people but that the arguments of Brenda Myles Smith and others who will appear on tonight's show are incorrect.
Michael Wigler, a geneticist who was written about in this month's issue of scientific american has a theory that females have a protective mechanism that would often make them the carrier for genes that could account for autism, but be less likely to give them the condition themself. Therefore, they could pass the gene on to their offspring but not end up being autistic.
Let's look at the diagnostic substitution argument that autistic females are often diagnosed as something else. I am curious as to what they are diagnosed as? Are they diagnosed having ADHD? Are they diagnosed as having dyslexia? What about stutterers? I suppose it is possible they will be more specific and answer the question on tonight's show, so I guess I will have to watch it to find out what the answer to that question is. After I watch the show, I may have to post an addendum to this post. However, this issue is of such great interest to me I could not curb my enthusiasm and had to post something about it today-before the show airs tonight. The problem with the diagnostic substitution argument is that not only has there been reported a 4:1 ratio of autistic boys to girls. The 4:1 ratio has also been reported in the above-named conditions as well. Here is one reference to the 4:1 ratio in stutterers http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288304
This would tend to negate the diagnostic substitution of argument of myles smith and others as this would mean there would be either parity in these other conditions between boys and girls or at least all of these undiagnosed girls with autism would end up being diagnosed as dyslexics, stutterers, etc. and the ratio would at least be substantially lower than 4:1 in these conditions. If these autistic girls were being diagnosed with something else there would have to be some sort of zero sum effect. The consistencies of ratios across conditions compels me to believe no such zero sum effect exists.
The next question is are dyslexia, ADHD, stuttering etc. underdiagnosed in girls also? How do the social arguments, ability to pass, less aggressive than boys arguments hold up for these conditions? What substitute diagnosis are these people given? This would also seem to negate that argument. How would female stutterers be able to hide their condition and pass for nonstutterers? Does this mean that reading problems in girls is not noticed. I am very curious to the answers to these questions?
I suppose I am getting a little off-topic here, so back to the original topic at hand. One of the reasons this alleged argument is so interesting is that the neurodiversity proponents at times often seem to imply that they are representative of all autistics. Sometimes they speak for all autistics. This phenomena has been noted by Harold Doherty's The Royal We post at http://autisminnb.blogspot.com/ I notice that it would seem that an extremely disproportionate number, probably more than 50% of these people are of the female gender. One can look at the postings of neurodiversity people on the internet and see how many females there are. If the allegations that autism is more common in girls than previously thought is true then perhaps neurodiversity's proponents might be more representative of those on the autistic spectrum than I thought. If these people are mistaken, then the predominence of females in the neurodiversity movement would seem to me to be problematic if they claimed that they were any sort of "real voice of autism" as autistics.org implies. It would mean they were less representative of autistics, so that their experiences would not mirror a typical autistic person, who would in reality have an 80% probability of being a male.
Though the internet seems to have a pervasive population of autistic females I know that in AGUA, the autism support group that I helped to start with Jerry Newport and some other people back in 1993 has at least a 10:1 ratio if not higher of males to females. This is greater than what is often presented in the literature. Though, some of the literature indicates that the ratio may be as high as 10:1 in the higher functioning groups as autistic females are often more severely afflicted than males as I mentioned previouslyThis is one thing that compels me not only to believe that neurodiversity is not a very representative sample of autistic people but that the arguments of Brenda Myles Smith and others who will appear on tonight's show are incorrect.
Michael Wigler, a geneticist who was written about in this month's issue of scientific american has a theory that females have a protective mechanism that would often make them the carrier for genes that could account for autism, but be less likely to give them the condition themself. Therefore, they could pass the gene on to their offspring but not end up being autistic.
Let's look at the diagnostic substitution argument that autistic females are often diagnosed as something else. I am curious as to what they are diagnosed as? Are they diagnosed having ADHD? Are they diagnosed as having dyslexia? What about stutterers? I suppose it is possible they will be more specific and answer the question on tonight's show, so I guess I will have to watch it to find out what the answer to that question is. After I watch the show, I may have to post an addendum to this post. However, this issue is of such great interest to me I could not curb my enthusiasm and had to post something about it today-before the show airs tonight. The problem with the diagnostic substitution argument is that not only has there been reported a 4:1 ratio of autistic boys to girls. The 4:1 ratio has also been reported in the above-named conditions as well. Here is one reference to the 4:1 ratio in stutterers http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288304
This would tend to negate the diagnostic substitution of argument of myles smith and others as this would mean there would be either parity in these other conditions between boys and girls or at least all of these undiagnosed girls with autism would end up being diagnosed as dyslexics, stutterers, etc. and the ratio would at least be substantially lower than 4:1 in these conditions. If these autistic girls were being diagnosed with something else there would have to be some sort of zero sum effect. The consistencies of ratios across conditions compels me to believe no such zero sum effect exists.
The next question is are dyslexia, ADHD, stuttering etc. underdiagnosed in girls also? How do the social arguments, ability to pass, less aggressive than boys arguments hold up for these conditions? What substitute diagnosis are these people given? This would also seem to negate that argument. How would female stutterers be able to hide their condition and pass for nonstutterers? Does this mean that reading problems in girls is not noticed. I am very curious to the answers to these questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
